MOORE v. STATE (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In her motion, Moore challenged the sufficiency of the charging document and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. “[A] motion to modify a sentence is limited in scope to sentences based on mistaken assumptions about a defendant's criminal record which work to the defendant's extreme detriment.” Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). The district court may summarily deny a motion to modify if the motion raises issues that fall outside of the very narrow scope of issues permissible in such a motion. Id. at 708 n.2, 918 P.2d at 325 n.2.

Without considering the merits of Moore's claims, we conclude they fall outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Moore's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.